A bunch of celebrities got together to do a PSA demanding "a plan" to combat gun violence. Of course, they didn't offer any insight on said "plan", it was more just a general call for action with sound bytes. Someone interspersed all of their contributions with all of the clips from film and television in which they all have profited from some type of glorified gun violence in the past.

I got you, thanks. So is the person who edited this saying they are all hypocrites and Hollywood is to blame for the shooting? I guess I don't understand how either is effective.

eddysnake wrote:I got you, thanks. So is the person who edited this saying they are all hypocrites and Hollywood is to blame for the shooting? I guess I don't understand how either is effective.

No, I don't think the editor is saying that. I personally don't blame Hollywood for mass shootings, because I understand that some people are wired to commit acts like that and we are usually powerless to stop it. I think it's more of a visceral reaction to, once again, a large collection of celebrities grouping together to express their views on an issue they know precious little about.

At least when they raise awareness for something like....Darfur....you can say "well at least they are bringing knowledge about it to the public, even if they don't know anything about it." I don't think this falls into that category though.

Gaucho wrote:I don't see how them using guns in a work of fiction makes them hypocrites. Reminds me of the tedious video games argument.

Just about every argument beyond "people that are mentally wired to be homicidal maniacs will commit atrocities like this from now till eternity" is tedious and boring, IMO.

I should be clear I don't believe Hollywood movies cause gun violence. HOWEVER, there is no doubt that many of these stars have benefited monetarily, in a big way, from the "gun culture" that is so maligned by many of these same people. Americans love guns, and they love movies with high-quality gun violence.

The point of the video is not to suggest violent movies cause real-life violence. It's to show that nearly all of these celebrities have directly profited from the horrible culture that they claim to want to change.

Proposed ‘fiscal cliff’ deal falls short under three economic theories

Economists generally offer three theories for what’s hampering the still-sluggish U.S. economy: the Keynesian theory, which would like to see lower taxes or more government spending; the spending/debt theory, which would like to see both of those reined in; and the uncertainty theory. Under none of them can the White House-Senate deal to avert the “fiscal cliff” be considered an economic success.

The deal would not inject more consumer spending power into the economy this year compared with last year — in Keynesian terms, it does the opposite.It won’t reduce government spending, and it will boost the national debt by trillions of dollars compared with what would have happened if lawmakers had not reached a cliff deal. It resolves only a slice of the policy “uncertainty” that many business leaders say is chilling investment in America.

Expiration of payroll holiday decreases take home pay of my wife and I buy $61/week. That will change my spendings habits. I could see that being two less weekend trips in 2013 requiring flights, hotels, rental cars, restaurants.

CBO estimates it will increase the deficit by $4 trillion compared to current law.

Simply unbelievable.

I might just not know the full repercussions of this agreement, but can't they just make a budget deal to avoid the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, and then tackle the larger deficit issue. This is just for this year's budget right? This issue is dealing with the mandatory spending that can't be fixed on a single budget right?

It seems to me like we're fighting an idealogical battle where it's out of context. Shouldn't these people clamoring for spending cuts start devising long term entitlement resolutions as opposed to demanding vague "spending cuts".

CBO estimates it will increase the deficit by $4 trillion compared to current law.

Simply unbelievable.

I might just not know the full repercussions of this agreement, but can't they just make a budget deal to avoid the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, and then tackle the larger deficit issue. This is just for this year's budget right? This issue is dealing with the mandatory spending that can't be fixed on a single budget right?

It seems to me like we're fighting an idealogical battle where it's out of context. Shouldn't these people clamoring for spending cuts start devising long term entitlement resolutions as opposed to demanding vague "spending cuts".

Automatic spending cuts and tax hikes were put in place 16 months ago as a mechanism for ensuring that the deficit issue was tackled by now. The can kick performed yesterday by Congress was pathetic.

Christie's indiscriminate fragging of his entire party (and praise of the president) has to be a wet dream come true for a lot of people. Of course, maybe if the people that wanted this bill so bad hadn't jammed it chock-full of senseless pork in a time where we are talking about the "fiscal cliff" and out of control debt, maybe it would have been passed sooner?

There's $150 million in there for Alaskan fisheries. We knew Sandy made it to the Midwest, but Alaska? Marine projects from New England to Mississippi also made the cut. Also along for the joyride is $8 million for new cars and other equipment for the Justice Department and Homeland Security, $2 million for roof repair at the Smithsonian in Washington, $4 million for the Kennedy Space Center, $3 million for oil-spill research and $348 million for the National Park Service.

Nearly $17 billion is in the bill for the Community Development Fund and social service grants, two long-running initiatives to fund liberal activists. Amtrak would get $188 million, including funds for two new train tunnels in New York unrelated to Sandy. Amtrak already got $1.4 billion last year. And of course some $600 million is directed to the Environmental Protection Agency to support climate change adaptation.

But yes, let's just immediately assume that we should have rushed as quickly as possible to pass a deeply flawed piece of legislation, because it has the word "aid" attached to it. The politicking going on is absolutely hilarious. Obviously, the Republicans and conservatives are going to be portrayed as the greedy grinches that battered the Jersey Shore all over again. el. oh. el.